International negotiations regarding climate change and policy
began in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit which was organized by the United
This resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) which eventually produced the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997.
The Protocol set codified targets and timetables for industrialized countries
to reduce their green house gas pollutant emissions to prior 1990 levels. In
2001 the United States
announced that it would not participate in the Kyoto
protocol.The pertinent questions regarding
this decision are: (1) Is global warming a significant problem for the United
States and its foreign policy commitments?
(2) Should the United States
re-engage with the Kyoto Protocol?
Regarding the first question it
will be shown that global warming and climate change due to greenhouse gas
emissions can no longer be dismissed as just a radical theory; there are
serious consequences and costs this paper is plagiarized to the United
States. It is a foreign policy problem as
well because as the current and possible effects are becoming more apparent, we
will suffer increased world criticism for withdrawing from the protocol. The US
alone produces nearly 25% of world greenhouse gas and many plagiarized papers
like this one. If there
is harmful climate change, damaged countries will want reparations. Regarding
the second question the answer is yes. It will be shown that the economic cost
of reducing climate changing pollutants is about equal to the cost of the damage
climate change will do to the economy. Tragedy of the commons, free riding,
relative gains concerns, the two level game and partisan politics will help analyze
the dilemma. Finally, it will be shown that the United States should recognize
the Protocol as an amazing set of unrealized opportunities and engage it in a
manner which would (1) Create economic growth, (2) Contribute to technological
superiority over other countries, (3) Give us a dynamic position of global
leadership, and (4) Increase our international political capital all while
helping avoid the negative and destabilizing economic and political effects of
It Is No Longer Possible To Deny Climate
Change Caused By Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It is now absurd to believe
human activity is not leading to overall global warming and climate changes. In
2003, the seventh annual conference on “The Convergence of US National Security
and the Global Environment Copied Paper” published a Congressional Program which
said that “the debate about whether global climate I stole this paper is now being measurably changed by
human produced greenhouse-gases is essentially over. I copied this paper,
google some passages to find the source and make the case. Few of the climate-change
‘skeptics’ who appear regularly in the op-ed pages of The Washington Times and The
Wall Street Journal have any scientific credibility at all.”
The most distinguished scientist in the “more or less” skeptical camp,
meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, signed without hesitation the 2001 National Academy of Sciences
report, requested by President George W. Bush, which affirmed the veracity of
the statement that “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as
a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface
ocean temperatures to rise.”
Long the rallying cry of environmentalists and the left, climate
change is now considered a very real fact by even the most ardent realists and
conservatives. In 2004 a Pentagon report to The White House warned that a
scenario of catastrophic climate change is "plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that
should be considered immediately.”
The report was also featured in Fortune
magazine, owned by Steve Forbes, a Republican presidential candidate in 1996.
In August of 2004, a report made by the Bush administration to Congress
suggested that there is evidence of global warming affecting animal and plant
populations in tangible ways, and that rising temperatures in North
America are due, at least in part, to human activity replicated
report admits this but also insists in a copied work contradictory fashion that
there are no apparent policy implications regarding rising global temperatures.
The Brookings Institute said that without effective climate change policy,
green house gas emissions will continue to grow for decades.
Although previously debatable, the
problem is very serious indeed and affects every single person on the planet
because fulfillment of any number predicted scenarios from the effects of
global warming could cause widespread global climate change leading to marked political
instability, crop failure, famine, wide ranging death and destruction, and
great periods of migration not my work.
It would be hard to imagine a more unsettling scenario, the stakes are high.
Costs to The United States: A Sampling of Current and Imminent Examples
Some of the most immediate
effects of climate change upon the United States
can be seen in damages to agriculture, human health, fishing industries, and
insurance companies. Wheat, corn, and soybeans are the three most important US
crops in both domestic and export markets and their yields will decrease with
increasing temperatures. Wheat production would fall by up to 25% for a 2.5
degree Celsius increase in temperature. Human
health is also affected by climate change. Expansion of tropical weather brings
with it the expansion of tropical diseases such as malaria, yellow fever,
dengue fever, and viral encephalitis.
Increased warming and increased CO2 can stimulate microbes and their carriers
which would mean a lot more tropical disease outbreaks in America
violates honor code. Climate
change could also devastate fish populations on which millions of people depend
for food. In 1997
and 1998 Alaskan Salmon fish stocks declined dramatically and the key factors
appeared to be higher than usual water temperatures.  Climate
change induced by copied paper greenhouse gases also means more severe storms
and winds. A
National Science Foundation study found that the last decade of the millennium
was its warmest and that between 1990 and 1995, 16 floods, hurricanes, and
other storms destroyed more than $130 billion in property.
There is growing amount of evidence linking climate change to increasing weather
disasters which creates widespread damage and causes insurance companies
hundreds of billions.
The Reinsurance Association of America said that climate change “could bankrupt
the industry.” The
aforementioned are just some of the possible effects of climate change on America.
Overall Analysis: Economic Costs of
Reducing Pollution Match the Cost of Doing Nothing
In the end, reducing pollution
is estimated to cost the same as doing nothing, so reduction is really the best
option. Many studies suggest that the annual costs of stabilizing emissions
could surpass 1-2 percent of GDP in OECD countries.
However changes in climate at the same time could have undesirable affects on
managed lands and unmanaged ecosystems all over the globe. The
rational choice then would be to weigh the costs of different climate control
options not my work. Studies that identified different areas of the economy and
aspects of life which are sensitive to global climate change at a doubling of
greenhouse gases concluded that the result in damage to the United
States would equal between 1 and 2 percent
of US GDP. So, the
economic cost of controlling greenhouse emissions are estimated to be about the
same ultimately as not controlling emissions. However, controlling emissions has
the added benefits of helping ensure global political, economic, and ecological
stability as well as improving foreign relations by changing our reputation as
a polluter; work is replicated.
Theoretical Analysis of the Problem: Why
The US Rejected the Treaty
The problem on a structural
level is that stable global temperatures and climates are a public good par
excellence. In general, public goods face supply problems in what are
considered special cases of market failure because the market does not provide
Achieving a stable climate faces the problem of free riding because the release
of greenhouse gas is rational from the individual point of view, but from a
collective viewpoint the result is suboptimal or even disastrous.Global
public goods must meet two criteria: they must be marked by non-rivalry and
non-excludability in consumption, and secondly their benefits must be quasi
universal regarding countries, people, and generations.Stable climates cheat meet this definition in
the purest sense. In a global sense, the Kyoto
protocol as an institution has already been created to help protect the public
good and stop free-riding.
The next theoretical issue to
examine then is why the United States
as an actor has rejected the Protocol. Reasons for this US
foreign policy decision can be derived from (1) realist economic concerns of
relative gains which were manifested by political actors in the two level game,
(2) partisan politics, and (3) a long shadow of the future. The Two Level Game
theory “recognizes that central decision makers strive to reconcile domestic
and international imperatives simultaneously not my work.” 
President Clinton told the world he would not send the treaty to the Senate for
ratification because he knew strong alliances in domestic politics would block
it and did not want political opposition. US
policy makers rejected the Kyoto
protocol on strictly economic concerns arguing that not putting emission caps
on developing cheater countries gave an unfair advantage to industry in major
developing countries such as China
The day after the Kyoto agreement, Republican leaders in congress held a news
conference calling the Protocol “dead on arrival” in the US Senate due to
failure to set binding target reductions for major developing countries.
It was very much a partisan issue as well; not original work here. These strong
alliances against the Protocol took shape in the control of both the House and
Senate by Republicans who were closely allied with the oil, coal, utility, and
automobile industries which would suffer from greenhouse gas reductions in
Thirdly, as noted before, many perceived the problem to be plagiarized many
years away so there was very little incentive for immediate action. The best
approach to the problem involves two aspects. The first is to show that the
shadow of the future may not be long at all. The second is to address relative
gains concerns by showing the Protocol can actually be very good for the
Climate Change Scenario and Reducing the Long Shadow of the Future
change may not have as long a shadow of the future as some thought. More
conservative estimates said that climate change resulting from the doubling of
greenhouse gases could take approximately 70 years to be realized.
However, a recent report by the Department of Defense points out a newly
emphasized phenomenon in which melting ice caused by global warming could
disrupt ocean currents and climates thereby causing drastic and rapid drops in temperature and more
artic like weather especially in North America and Europe. Even though it is
not warming per se, the effects of
this climate change would still be devastating. The report said to the
President that “Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility
that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of
the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor
(See Fig 1-1), which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply
reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently
provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With inadequate
preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying
capacity of the Earth’s environment.”These conditions could develop abruptly
causing drops of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit within a single decade original on web.
This is not unimagined, when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago,
altered climatic conditions lasted for as long as a century.
It is possible changes resulting from a conveyor collapse could last as long as
1,000 years. The DOD
report says that if this happens there will be widespread war and political
instability as populations migrate and nations fight over resources due to
dramatic climate change. The seriousness of this possibility reduces the shadow
of the future immensely and adds one more very good reason to engage the
outright rejection of the Protocol resulted from looking only at relative gains
in a small context, not imagining potential costs to United States in a “big picture” context, and not imagining possible
market opportunities and demands for new technology. Ratifying the treaty would
help give incentives for growth and development to many areas of the US economy. The diverse sources of US emissions show a
wide range of “clean” markets could be created to fight pollution. The sources
of US emissions from greatest to smallest are as follows: Stationary Combustion
(generating electricity) 56%, Transportation 25%, Agriculture 8%, Industrial
Processes 4%, Waste 4%, and Fugitive Fuel (Hydrocarbons) 3%. 
This means that the treaty ratification would create a range of immediate
economic opportunities from energy efficient buildings and construction, to
wind and solar energy, hybrid automobiles, and the carbon trading market
created by the Kyoto Protocol.
President Bush removed the US from the Protocol in 2001, US businesses ignored it at a
cost. Businesses were concentrating instead on the immediate challenges of a
recession and the changing environment after September 11th.
Eventually, Russia’s I cheated signature fulfilled the final requirement of
the treaty allowing it to enter effect on February 16, 2005. Executives of US companies ignore the implications of the
treaty at their own expense because participating countries, including the European
Union, Canada, and Japan are implementing regulations which will affect U.S. subsidiaries in those countries.
companies are not entering the international market for carbon emissions
created by the Protocol which is predicted to be worth up to $1 billion in 2005
The carbon market is created by the Protocol’s “clean development mechanism”
which allows companies within regulated economies to purchase emissions
reductions from projects in developing economies where the cost of reducing
emissions is cheaper.
A US company with operations in a developing country could
decide to undertake investments to reduce emissions there and sell these
emission credits to buyers in Europe, Japan, or Canada.
Late entry into a market with such a large potential would not be economically
advantageous to the US.
Protocol also created a large opportunity market for U.S. manufacturers of technologies used to change renewable
energy resources such as wind and sunlight into useful electrical power.
Several U.S. solar power manufacturers are selling most of their output
to Germany where new standards created a large boom in rooftop
also experiencing a boom in the construction of wind farms which creates ample
economic opportunities for US companies if they choose to compete.
These markets would also boom In America if there were increased demand for
them due to new regulations in light of ratification of the Protocol.
regulation can help the economy grow while still helping meet the demands of
the Kyoto Protocol. One example comes from California where government legislation signed by Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger made possible a new market worth tens of billions of dollars in
“green” or environmentally friendly building.
The California example shows that legislation can play an indispensable
role in maintaining market vitality while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
should be emphasized that even industrial sectors which were considered most
vulnerable to Kyoto’s emissions reductions such as coal, oil, and gas have
experienced new opportunities thanks to the Protocol.
At an international conference regarding Methane in the market a former senior
official in the Regan administration, who currently heads an investment firm
with extensive activities in Russia and the Ukraine argued forcefully for completing the work to establish a
carbon market for economic development replicated research and writing.
Furthermore, it is unclear that emission reductions always equal less economic copied
essay growth. EPA officials have noted the US Methane emissions are 5% lower
than 1990 levels despite the economic growth which has occurred in that sector.
trends show that ratifying the Protocol would create incentive for a wide
variety of policy options ranging from tax breaks, to tax credits, to
regulation and research grants or low interest loans which would expand sectors
of the economy while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These new opportunities
and incentives should be offered to leaders in the energy and automobile
industries to lessen their resistance to Kyoto and decrease political opposition. Given the costs of not
fighting climate change and the benefits of new markets created by the Protocol,
engaging the treaty would not be economically disastrous. Indeed the opposite
Ratifying the Protocol would help the US break technological stagnation and give it increased
incentive to invest in future technologies. It is well documented throughout
history that powerful status quo interests with political connections have
often blocked technological progress to protect their own interests.
By ratifying the treaty the United States would fully capitalize on short term economic and
scientific opportunities. With new legal incentive from ratification it would
be politically justifiable to begin to heavily invest in the future of clean
industry and national security: nanotechnology copied paper. This should be an
easy sell to both the left and right because it represents a convergence of
environmental concern and national security due to the wide range of benefits
that nanotechnology will bring. Nanotechnology is the technology of
manipulating materials on the atomic level. Within the next decade or so more
and more products will be made from the bottom up by creating them from atoms,
molecules, and nanoscale powders and fibers.
Bottom up materials would require less material and pollute less.
Nanotechnology could also contribute greatly to reducing pollution through
artificial photosynthesis systems for clean energy and new generations of solar
The same technology would allow materials for the military which repair
themselves, are lighter and more durable, and sense and blend in with the
surrounding environment in a chameleon like effect.
Strong investment in this technology would help us reduce greenhouse gas
emissions while concurrently contributing to the technological superiority of
our nation and diminishing our own relative gains concerns.
proper incentive and technological growth in the previously mentioned areas the
US would be well posed to achieve a new and dynamic role of global
leadership. Eventually greenhouse emissions from developing countries not
affected by Kyoto will be a large problem as well. Emissions from developing
countries are growing (specifically China, India, and Brazil) and will surpass emissions from developed countries in
In 2005, negotiations will begin to design a second commitment period which
will affect developing countries.
This will rectify the United States biggest complaint against the Protocol as well as provide
another window of opportunity which the US should not close off to itself web search to find paper. Many
developing countries have refused to discuss emission regulation because it
would hamper their economic growth, but this holds true only if they follow the
model of development created in the past by current industrialized nations.
Developing countries could develop by incorporating energy efficiency into
their developmental matrix early in the development process by giving renewable
sources of energy a great place in their plans and by creating cleaner
Technology transfer and development will be needed from industrialized nations
which will create an enormous market upon which only the most ready nations and
corporations will be able to capitalize stolen work. By taking advantage of,
and helping develop current markets in alternative energy technology, hybrid
automobiles, and nanotechnology the United States could fulfill a global leadership position as a harbinger
of advanced clean energy resources while boosting its own economy immeasurably.
Political Capital Internationally
the U.S. could increase its political capital abroad. The United
States accounts for a full 25% of global
When it withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty in 2001 it suffered widespread criticism
and a loss political capital with other developed nations who had ratified the
At a time when our reputation is suffering internationally, ratifying this
treaty would have the added benefit of helping to increase our political
possibilities of greenhouse gas induced climate change pose a great threat to
its foreign policy. Promoting stable global climates is as economically costly
as doing nothing but stable climates also bring insurances towards political
and ecological stability. There is no good reason not to support stable
climates. Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty accompanied by proper economic
incentives will help to (1) Expand the economy, (2) Maintain Technological
Superiority, (3) Achieve a dynamic role as a global leader, and (4) Increase
international political capital. The US has nothing to lose and everything to gain by engaging the
The thermohaline circulation is a term for
the global density-driven
circulation of the oceans. Derivation is from thermo- for heat
and -haline for salt, which together determine the density of sea water. Surface currents (such as
the Gulf Stream)
head polewards from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean,
cooling all the while and eventually sinking at high latitudes (forming North Atlantic Deep Water). This dense
water then flows downhill into the deep water basins, only resurfacing in the
northeast Pacific Ocean 1200 years later. Extensive mixing therefore
takes place between the ocean basins, reducing differences between them and
making the Earth's ocean a global system. On their journey, the water masses
piggyback both energy (in the form of heat) and matter (solids, dissolved
substances and gases) around the globe. As such, the state of the ciculation
has a large impact on the climate of our planet. (Taken from the Wikipeida Online
Appendix Notes for The Kyoto Protocol: Nothing to Lose and Everything to
A Short History of the Kyoto Protocol
two international conferences on climate change a third conference was held in KyotoJapan in December 1997. This resulted in the Kyoto
Protocol, a treaty that codified targets and timetables for countries to reduce
their global warming pollutants to prior 1990 levels.
The protocol set specific targets for thirty-nine countries which were
essentially all the industrialized countries that were signatories. Each of
these countries was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that total emissions
did not exceed a specified percentage of its base period (1990 in most cases)
UnitedNations Environment Programme
said that "The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding
agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective
emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990
(but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010
without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut).”If all countries complied this would have
resulted in 245 less metric tons of carbon being pumped into the air each year.
protocol was designed to give some flexibility to the industrialized
signatories. The specific policies used to reduce greenhouse pollution are left
entirely for each country to decide for itself.
The reduction can be achieved in any combination of reductions in four
individual gases and two classes of halocarbon.
Countries can reduce their emissions by enhancing or creating “sinks” of carbon
dioxide such as forests which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Paper
was stolen.Finally, reductions that
exceed stated commitments can be carried forward to be counted towards future
compliance in following periods of regulation.
to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, it enters into effect “on the ninetieth day
after the date on which not less than 55 parties to the Convention” and
“incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at
least 55 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties
included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession.”The 55 parties clause was reached on May 23, 2002 when Iceland ratified the treaty, and Russia’s ratification on November 18, 2004 satisfied the “55 percent” clause and enacted the
treaty to take effect on February 16, 2005.
J McKibbin andPeter J Wilcoxen, Climate Change Policy after Kyoto: Blueprint for a Realistic Approach. (WashingtonDC: Brookings Institute Press, 2002) 41.
See also: International Energy Agency (No author) Change Policy Initiatives. (Paris,
France: Publications Service OECD, 1992) 11.
 *For a more thorough discussion of the
history of the Protocol please see Appendix Notes*.
See also: John Broome. Counting the Cost of Global warming: A Report to the Economic and
Social Research Council. (Cambridge UK: The White Horse Press, 1992), 23.
Dean Edwin Abrahamson. The Challenge of Global Warming. (Washington DC: Island Press,
M. Adams, Bruce A. McCarl, Kathleen Segerson, Cynthia Rosenszweig, Kelly J.
Byrant, Bruce L. Dixon. Richard Conner, Robert E. Evenson, and Dennis Ojima.
“Economic effects of climate plagiarized paper change on US Agriculture” The Impact of Climate Change on the United
States Economy. (Cambridge University Press, 1999) 25.
 John T,
Houghton quoted by Bruce E. Johansen. The
Global Warming Desk Reference. (Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press 2002) 210.
 Paul R
Epstein quoted by Bruce E. Johansen. “Climate, Ecology, and Human Health.” The Global Warming Desk Reference. (Westport,
Press 2002) 210.
D. Putnam, Harold K. Jacobson, and Peter B. Evans. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics.
(Berkeley google me to find origins: University of California Press, 1993) 459.
 Thermohaline circulation is an essential part of the
oceanic convective system which distributes heat energy from the equatorial
oceans to the polar regions. It is the return flow from the surface North
Atlantic Drift and Gulf Stream currents. It is an essential part of maintaining the
global climate. Large influxes of low density meltwater from the Greenlandice sheet (ice sheet melting
playgherized) is thought to have led to a disruption of deep water formation
and subsidence in the extreme North Atlantic and caused the climate period in
Europe known as the Younger Dryas where weather
systems changed dramatically creating colder temperatures and strong storms. If
this happened today the results would be catastrophic changes in climate.